AGE-INCLUSIVE STRATEGIES TO ENHANCE LEARNING AND WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENTS IN U.S. HIGHER EDUCATION

Abstract This symposium reports on recent research to develop informed strategies to expand age-friendly campus practices related to institutional functions our previous study identified as areas of high-need and broad-impact within an age-friendly campus environment: Teaching and Learning, Personnel, and Student Affairs. The current research aimed to identify barriers and opportunities for age inclusivity as experienced by older campus members (faculty, staff, and students); identify challenges and strategies for implementing age-friendly campus practices; and recommend practical strategies to expand and enhance age-friendly practices. To this end, we drew on data collected from several sources: open-ended responses to the Age-Friendly Inventory and Campus Climate Survey (ICCS) administered to a sample of 23 U.S. members of the Age-Friendly University (AFU) network; responses from 16 focus groups of faculty, administrators/staff, and students; and 18 experts on a nationally selected Delphi panel of experts in higher education. Based on the focus group data, we generated over 50 strategy recommendations within the academic functions that were then evaluated by the Delphi panelists to assess their efficacy, feasibility, likelihood of implementation, and perceived impact. Silverstein will provide an overview of the research objectives, Bowen will discuss what the open-ended responses revealed about perceptions of campus age-inclusivity, Lin and Xu will describe the study samples, Whitbourne will describe the results of the focus group analyses, and Montepare will discuss the final set of recommendations based on the Delphi panel analyses. Berg-Weger will serve as Discussant.


DIVERSIFYING THE PIPELINE OF GERONTOLOGISTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON
Edward Miller, Jeffrey E. Stokes, Pamela Nadash, Kathrin Boerner, and ellen Birchander, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, United States The University of Massachusetts (UMass) Boston is a public research university serving approximately 16,000 students.It is the most diverse university in New England and third most diverse university in the nation.UMass Boston prioritizes fostering an anti-racist and health-promoting institutional culture.Consistent with this priority, the Gerontology Department is committed to growing the size and diversity of the professional pipeline in aging services, policy, practice, and research.This presentation describes the multi-pronged approach taken to achieve this objective, while identifying associated facilitators and challenges.Department-wide initiatives include prioritizing work in disparities and a commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion in faculty hiring and implementing curriculum self-assessment and climate survey tools.Doctoral program initiatives include establishing a scholarship in Social Justice and Aging and submitting a training grant application in Health Equity Research.Undergraduate program initiatives include changing the name of the major to "Aging Studies" to make the content clearer and more accessible, proposing a minor in Aging Studies to make it possible for students from across the University to earn a valuable credential, having all courses meet Social and Behavioral requirements in general education (including, in select cases, the Diversity requirement as well), and expanding the number and attractiveness of course offerings (including "Diversity and Aging").The Department is also implementing an initiative where undergraduates receive paid internships at local-area aging agencies with potential for continued employment postgraduation.Enhancing diversity goes hand-in-hand with growing program enrollment with positive benefits for older adults and their families, caregivers, and communities.

AGE-INCLUSIVE STRATEGIES TO ENHANCE LEARNING AND WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENTS IN U.S. HIGHER EDUCATION
Chair: Nina Silverstein Co-Chair: Lauren Bowen Discussant: Marla Berg-Weger This symposium reports on recent research to develop informed strategies to expand age-friendly campus practices related to institutional functions our previous study identified as areas of high-need and broad-impact within an age-friendly campus environment: Teaching and Learning, Personnel, and Student Affairs.The current research aimed to identify barriers and opportunities for age inclusivity as experienced by older campus members (faculty, staff, and students); identify challenges and strategies for implementing age-friendly campus practices; and recommend practical strategies to expand and enhance age-friendly practices.To this end, we drew on data collected from several sources: open-ended responses to the Age-Friendly Inventory and Campus Climate Survey (ICCS) administered to a sample of 23 U.S. members of the Age-Friendly University (AFU) network; responses from 16 focus groups of faculty, administrators/staff, and students; and 18 experts on a nationally selected Delphi panel of experts in higher education.Based on the focus group data, we generated over 50 strategy recommendations within the academic functions that were then evaluated by the Delphi panelists to assess their efficacy, feasibility, likelihood of implementation, and perceived impact.Silverstein will provide an overview of the research objectives, Bowen will discuss what the open-ended responses revealed about perceptions of campus age-inclusivity, Lin and Xu will describe the study samples, Whitbourne will describe the results of the focus group analyses, and Montepare will discuss the final set of recommendations based on the Delphi panel analyses.Berg-Weger will serve as Discussant.

IDENTIFYING CHALLENGES FOR AGE-INCLUSIVE HIGHER EDUCATION: SURVEY RESPONSES BY FACULTY, STAFF, AND STUDENTS Lauren Bowen, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
To ground and contextualize focus group discussions, potential challenges to age-inclusivity were identified from open-ended responses in a survey of faculty, staff, and students at 25 AFU institutions in the United States.First-level coding identified 2,368 responses that indicated participants' perceptions of their campus's efforts to be age-friendly across major function areas of higher education institutions; of these, many responses directly addressed key functions that the current study aims to address: 508 on Teaching and Learning; 260 on Student Affairs; 348 on Personnel.Secondlevel coding identified particular themes capturing common negative perceptions by faculty, staff, and students within each function area.For example, in teaching and learning, the four common complaints were that classroom practices and environments were not age-inclusive; that accessing appropriate academic support outside the classroom was difficult for older/nontraditional students; and that classes could do more to maximize the benefits of age diversity.As potential challenges to age-inclusivity in higher education, these themes provided the base structure of 8 focus group discussion guides tailored to function area and constituent group: Teaching and Learning (for faculty, staff, and students), Student Affairs (for faculty, staff, and students), and Personnel (for faculty and staff).

STUDY METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE SELECTION TO DEVELOP AGE-INCLUSIVE STRATEGIES
Yan Lin 1 , and Shu Xu 2 , 1. University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, United States, 2. University of Massachusetts, Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, United States Practical, feasible, and impactful age-friendly campus strategies to advance age inclusivity were identified through focus group and Delphi panel methodologies.Sixteen virtual focus groups with 78 participants (41 faculty, 16 students, and 21 staff/administrators; 44% ages 45-64 and 12% 65 and older) were conducted to assess age inclusivity in three institutional functions defined as high impact: teaching and learning, personnel, and student affairs.Facilitators presented participants with questions based on strategies and challenges identified from open-ended survey responses to our previous study.Following similar scripts for each of the three groups, facilitators asked 5 to 6 questions regarding potential strategies to address challenges such as those related to teaching older, age-diverse students; intergenerational tensions and biases; student support services; and incentives for faculty to integrate aging content into their courses.Next, the strategies yielded from this analysis were presented in online surveys to the Delphi panelists to assess their feasibility and impact.These 18 panelists had been selected based on their broad experience in higher education and upper-level administrative knowledge, professional connections, and/or expertise in diversity/inclusion/equity initiatives.In the first round, they evaluated the relative importance of 21 challenges to age inclusivity and their appropriateness, feasibility, and likelihood of implementation.The second-round survey narrowed the list of strategies to those rated as most viable (feasible and appropriate) in the first round and identified priorities among the selected strategies.

MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF AGE-INCLUSIVE EDUCATION: FOCUS GROUP PERSPECTIVES Susan Whitbourne, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Through a series of 16 virtual focus groups involving a national sample of 78 faculty, staff, and students, a set of challenges and related strategies for meeting those challenges were identified based on the ICCS responses from campus constituent groups of faculty, staff, and students.Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts in the areas of teaching/learning, personnel, and student affairs produced 969 strategy statements that were then collapsed into thematic groupings based on the challenges they were intended to address.Major challenges and their relevant areas included the following: Long-term employees often feel undervalued (personnel), non-traditional age and older students often feel that career services do not meet their needs, and non-traditional age and older students often feel excluded or disregarded in the post-secondary classroom.Focus group members suggested strategies in the area of personnel that included greater recognition of accomplishments of long-term employees.In student affairs, they suggested such strategies as providing more resources for advising and career services.Teaching and learning strategies included incentivizing faculty to develop age-inclusive practices and promoting agefriendly classroom and course offerings.These findings suggest ways for campuses to enhance age-inclusive practices through specific actions, but their feasibility and impact remain necessary to evaluate.